[79065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W Gilmore)
Tue Mar 29 15:37:28 2005
In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.2.20050329141415.04420a68@mail.socket.net>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
From: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:36:08 -0500
To: Nanog Mailing list <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mar 29, 2005, at 3:27 PM, John Dupuy wrote:
> I guess I'm looking at this too much from the point of view of a BGP
> Admin.
>
> Yes, if you are looking at this from the point of view of payment,
> then the top ISPs do not pay each other.
>
> I was looking at it from a route announcement point of view. Transit
> is where AS A advertises full routes to AS B. Thus, AS B is getting
> transit from A. Peering is where A & B only advertise their network
> and, possibly, the networks that stub or purchase transit from them.
>
> It is my understanding that the top ISPs "trade transit". They provide
> full routes to each other without payment, regardless of how or where
> the route was learned from. They are willing to pass some traffic
> without compensation because it makes for better connectivity. From an
> announcement POV they are not peering.
>
> I am still curious: do any of the larger ISPs on this list want to
> confirm/deny the previous paragraph?
I would be AMAZINGLY interested if anyone confirms the above paragraph.
AFAIK, 701/1239/209/etc. do not give full tables to _anyone_ unless
they are paid.
Someone care to correct me?
--
TTFN,
patrick
